SALT SPRING, September 28 – At the UBCM this morning, the province’s local governments voted to support a resolution on giving them a say when microcells are placed within 100 meters of homes, schools and hospitals in their communities.

Despite a substantial body of evidenceshowing wireless technology is harmful to humans and the environment, Innovation Canada allows microcells to be placed on lampposts and utility poles by our homes without our consent or often knowledge.

Aesthetics, property value, liability, industry control-for-profit over the public right of way, cyber-security, public safety, health, and well-being – there are many reasons why local governments are concerned about microcells.

The Resolution That Was Passed:

MOTION of Grand Forks City Council:

WHEREAS public consultation on the placement of cell towers is mandated; and

WHEREAS new technology is moving away from these large towers to microtransmitters which do not require local government or public consultation;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the AKBLG request the UBCM petition relevant provincial and federal governments to mandate consultation with the land use authorities and the public regarding microcell transmitter siting within 100 meters of residences, schools and hospitals.

What’s a Microcell?

Microcells are small cellular transmitters that broadcast wireless radiation 24 -7. Anywhere from 3 to 10 of them are being placed on one residential street. Wireless radiation is linked to an increased risk of cancer, as well reproductive and neurologicalproblems – like disturbed sleep. It is conservatively defined as a2b carcinogen, which means it is in the same category as DDT.

Out of Sight, Out of Mind?

Industry is coming up with some sneaky ways of designing – or is that hiding – small cell transmitters. But that doesn’t mean their effects will not be felt.

Connectivity does not have to be primarily EMF-based and does not have to continue to escalate the amount of this scientifically deemed hazardous substance to which we are all exposed.

Direct fiber optic connections, G-Fast technology which connects fiber optic cables to existing copper wires, strategically placed low-EMF emitting public transmitters like those piloted in Paris, France – why are telecoms choosing to put the well-being of all of us, including wildlife and plants at risk, when safe options are available?

SALT SPRING, September 25 – The big story out of the UBCM so far this week is the BC government’s announcement that they are seeking public and municipal input on the legalization of marijuana. But there is another burning issue on the conference agenda that deserves your attention – Resolution B100 on the lack of public and local government input on the placement of microcells within 100 meters of homes, schools, and hospitals.

Grand Forks councillor Beverley Tripp will be giving a presentation on Resolution B100 and microcells at 9:30am on Tuesday at the UBCM’s Small Talk Forum.

Recognize that connectivity does not have to be primarily EMF-based and does not have to continue to escalate the amount of this scientifically deemed hazardous substance to which we are all exposed. (To see why over 180 European scientists and physicians have just announced they are opposed to mass microcell placement in preparation for 5G deployment click here (https://tinyurl.com/ycx5ngnx)

Direct fiber optic connections, G-Fast technology which connects fiber optic cables to existing copper wires, strategically placed low-EMF emitting public transmitters like those piloted in Paris, France (http://www.lexnet.fr/fileadmin/user/communication/LEXNET-Press_Release_1.pdf) – why are we permitting telecoms to choose to put the well being of all of us, including wildlife and plants at risk, when safe options are available?

Getting Buzzed in the Bedroom?Municipalities Vote on Small Cells & the Right to Choose

SALT SPRING, September 16 – At the September 25-29 Union of BC Municipalities Convention in Vancouver, local governments will be voting on a resolution aimed at giving them a say in microcell placement in their communities.

Aesthetics, property value, industry control-for-profit over the public right of way, cyber-security, safety, health, and well-being – there are many reasons for local governments and all of us to be concerned about microcells.

The Resolution:

MOTIONof Grand Forks City Council:

WHEREAS public consultation on the placement of cell towers is mandated; and

WHEREAS new technology is moving away from these large towers to microtransmitters which do not require local government or public consultation;

THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the AKBLG request the UBCM petition relevant provincial and federal governments to mandate consultation with the land use authorities and the public regarding microcell transmitter siting within 100 meters of residences, schools and hospitals.

What’s all the Fuss About? (And what’s a microcell?)

Microcells are small cellular transmitters that broadcast wireless radiation 24 -7. Anywhere from 3 to 10 of them are being placed on one residential street. Wireless radiation is linked to an increased risk of cancer, as well reproductive and neurological problems – like disturbed sleep. It is conservatively defined as a 2b carcinogen, which means it is in the same category as DDT.

The wireless industry would like us to believe the jury’s still out on whether wireless radiation has harmful health impacts. But thousands of peer-reviewed studies show evidence of harm. Over 180 scientists and physicians just sent out a plea for a halt to the rollout of 5G transmitters in Europe (http://www.odwyerpr.com/story/public/9390/2017-09-13/scientists-35-countries-rap-proposed-calif-5g-radiation-rollout.html). To protect their health, California firefighters won an exemption from having small cells placed on their fire halls. It seems then, that the “smart” choice would be to adopt the precautionary principal for all, and not allow microcells to become permanent fixtures in our communities and our lives.

What’s the Game Plan?

The end game is no landlines and “smart” everything for all of us, and big bucks through data mining for the telecoms. Don’t be fooled into thinking these technologies are green. The “Cloud” is a huge energy guzzler, while tech production and waste is anything but eco-friendly.

There are safe ways of sharing high-speed data, like using wired fiber optic connections. New paradigms in non-harm inducing connectivity are waiting to be discovered, but industry must be urged by consumers and regulators to develop and promote them.

This summer, 300 California cities have voiced strong opposition to a California microcell placement bill, SB 649. This bill would essentially create the same situation there that we have here – telecoms being given free rein to use the public right of way for profit, disturbing the sanctity of our streets, and maybe even preventing us from getting that proverbial good night’s sleep.

The Newsletter of EMF Refugee,The International Coalition for an Electromagnetic Safe Planet (IC-ESP)

Wakeup Everyone, If this bill passes in California then this will make it much more difficult for those of us in the rest of the USA and in Canada to stop this massive increase in the Electro Pollution by all forms of RFR. This is VERY VERY Serious because high levels of RFR have been shown to cause many serious effects.

Do your research on this. Remember that when there is lots of money to be made then corporations will lie.

SAN FRANCISCO (KPIX) — Super Bowl 50 is expected to draw a million visitors to San Francisco and they’ll all be packing cellphones. Wireless providers are racing to beef up service but that’s coming at the expense of some unhappy residents.

Unless Ludwig Chincarini can convince the city to block the plan, Verizon will soon be installing a mini cell tower right outside his living-room window.

“I mean, the antenna is on the pole ten feet in front of my house,” said Chincarini.

Wireless carriers like Verizon are putting up thousands of the so-called distributed antenna systems in the Bay Area because they say demand for data has nearly doubled in the past year. The industry says these towers are safe. But Chincarini is not convinced.

“There are people who believe there could be effects, like cancer,” he said.

The Federal Communication Act of 1996 says cities and states can’t consider health concerns when regulating the placement of these devices, as long as wireless companies follow FCC radiation guidelines — guidelines that are based on science from the mid-1990s, when we all were still talking on brick-size mobile phones.

“The federal regulations are obsolete,” said Joel Moskowitz, who heads the Center for Family and Community Health at U.C. Berkeley’s School of Public Health.

Moskowitz is among 215 scientists from 40 countries calling on the United Nations and the World Health Organization to develop stronger guidelines for electromagnetic radiation exposures.

But that doesn’t matter to the Feds. Due to that 20-year-old law, the only way residents can legally protest one of these RF-emitting cellphone antennas outside their window is to ignore health concerns and focus on the way they look.

“It’s really based on aesthetics,” said Omar Masry, the wireless planner for the city of San Francisco. But Masry says aesthetics doesn’t refer merely to the view from your window.

The city can only deny a permit if it obstructs the “public view” of a historic landmark or a park.

That’s thanks to yet another dated law — this one passed by the state when horse and buggies still lined the streets — that gave telegraph companies the right to put up telegraph lines.

We asked Masry if the city has ever sided with residents and revoked the permit for one of these wireless towers. His response: “Well, a recent example was a site at Central and Page streets in the Haight Ashbury district. Residents raised concern about how the antennas would detract from a historic building.”

We asked, “So is it safe to say, once?” He replied: “Once, yes.”

That’s out of 249 protests over the past two years.

After Ludwig Chincarini lost his protest, he kept fighting, taking it to the San Francisco Appeals Board where (for $300) you have the right to fight the cell tower installers in person.

Ludwig presented slides that showed how the proposed tower would obstruct views of Golden Gate Park. He even brought up the subject of health, comparing safety assurances by the wireless industry to cigarette advertising from the 1950s, showing an ad that reads “more doctors smoke Camels than any other cigarette.”

“Today we laugh at things like that,” said Chincarini.

But an attorney for Crown Castle, the company installing Verizon’s cell sites, was quick to remind commissioners they can’t consider health concerns.

“As you have heard many times now that is simply not a matter that you are allowed to take into account,” said Martin Fineman.

Just when Ludwig figured he’d wasted $300 dollars, a surprise twist! Coincidentally, with our cameras rolling, the commissioners upheld an appeal for the second time ever, citing a technicality with the permit.

Verizon is now appealing that appeal. In a statement to KPIX 5 the company said:

“The demand for mobile data services in the U.S. has nearly doubled over the last year, and is expected to grow 650 percent between 2013 and 2018.* With San Francisco’s population continuing to rise at a record pace, and thousands of people coming to the city every day for work and to visit, adding capacity to our network is critical to keep the city connected. To meet the growing demand, Verizon Wireless is working to deploy a variety of solutions throughout San Francisco, including distributed antenna systems (DAS), small cells and traditional macro cell sites, all of which comply with FCC safety standards. These solutions will add capacity and improve in-building coverage, voice quality, reliability and data speeds for San Francisco residents, businesses, first responders and visitors using the Verizon Wireless Network.”

Crown Castle called KPIX 5 with the following statement:

“Crown Castle takes numerous factors into consideration during the design, engineering and construction of our network in order to most effectively provide the community with enhanced broadband service. Crown Castle believes the carefully engineered poles and route locations selected represent the best option for its network to benefit the community.”

The FCC said it is considering re-examining electromagnetic exposure limits.

And the World Health Organization said that, so far, there is no evidence of health effects from the distributed antenna systems.

Also, see the actions of the president of the CPUC (California Public Utilities Commission and a judge that have upheld the rights of the utility companies over the public.http://www.emfanalysis.com/cpuc-testimony/

An excellent article that all of you should read. It is only 15 pages with some interesting diagrams. As Jeromy stated, it seems that the commissioner and law judge are living in an alternate universe.

Example of content of this article. New info for me at least. Something to follow up on.